David Barton, founder and president of Wallbuilders, was on The Daily Show last night... and as usual with controversial people, the interview went long.

For those of you who don't know, Wallbuilder's considers the separation of Chuch and State a bad thing... the name refers to those who build the walls of Jerusalem, not Thomas Jefferson's letter to a Baptist Church.

IMP. Jon was uncharacteristically outmatched with Barton-mostly because he was ill-prepared

David what are you: a constitutional scholar? an evangelist? an historian? a glorified librarian?

an administrative educator? or a political activist? choose one

during this time that you set the standards for history and social sciences in Texas; were you not the vice-president of the Republican Party of Texas and in charge of recruitment and expansion?

how does a one-way wall work? is it like A lobster trap? site one document that describes the wall of seperation as one way

and finally, you claim you have the originals of all these documents that contradict-what is generally taught in our schools about the relationship between church and state? Isn't that just the debate fallacy of appeal to authority?

(grr... why is it that I seem to have free time only in the morning these days?)

Yeah... Jon Stewart did seem to be uncharacteristicly unprepared in that interview, didn't he?

There were three things that David Barton said that really stood out, though:

1) Like many "states rights" advocates, he seems to ignore the 14th Amendment, which protects the rights of citizens protected in the Constitution from being violated by the States. Yes, the First Amendment does indeed say "Congress shall pass no law...," but the 14th says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

2) The Treaty of Tripoli just meant that the US wasn't a European Christian state? Really? He really thinks this -- "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- somehow meant that not only was the US founded upon Christianity, but a version of 18th Century Christianity that wasn't hostile to other religions... despite the fact that most versions of Christianity in the US were quite hostile to other versions of Christianity in the US in the 18th century, and many versions are still hostile to other religions today? Does he have a bridge in Manhatten to sell us as well?

3) He really has no problem with using government power wedded to peer pressure to coerce school aged children to pledge allegiance to his god when they pledge allegiance to our country? Seriously?

I've never heard about this deity that the founders apparently created. What are its aspects? Where are its temples? Where can I find its scriptures?

And why on earth would any Christian, let alone a conservative Christian like David Barton who clearly wants to establish conservative Evangelical Christianity as the official religion of the United States, wish to pledge allegience to it, rather than to Christ?

I've never heard about this deity that the founders apparently created. What are its aspects? Where are its temples? Where can I find its scriptures?

And why on earth would any Christian, let alone a conservative Christian like David Barton who clearly wants to establish conservative Evangelical Christianity as the official religion of the United States, wish to pledge allegience to it, rather than to Christ?

Although I do find your interpretation of the nation as deity rather dubious, especially given the "one nation under god" thing.

I'm pretty sure that people like David Barton have only one God in mind, and it isn't this, IMO mythical, civil religion of the USA.

I'm pretty sure that the people who started this whole "one nation under god" thing had only one God in mind, and it wasn't this civil religion of the USA.

I'm pretty sure that the millions of atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, and other religious minority parents who are faced with the choice of telling their children to either pledge themselves to a god they don't believe in, or single themselves out for bullying, have only one god in mind, and it isn't theirs (if any).

And I'm pretty sure that if I was ever convinced that this god we're told, by our government, we're under was, indeed, this mythical civil religion, I'd tell my (hypothetical) children not to pledge allegience to it, for they should reserve their allegience to Christ. And I'd still want it removed from our pledge, the country's seal, and our currency.

For our government has no right to establish any religion... even vague, monotheistic civil religions, in this country. It is only when the government is truly secular can all religions flourish.

I'm pretty sure that the people who started this whole "one nation under god" thing had only one God in mind, and it wasn't this civil religion of the USA.

I'm pretty sure that the millions of atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, and other religious minority parents who are faced with the choice of telling their children to either pledge themselves to a god they don't believe in, or single themselves out for bullying, have only one god in mind, and it isn't theirs (if any).

And I'm pretty sure that if I was ever convinced that this god we're told, by our government, we're under was, indeed, this mythical civil religion, I'd tell my (hypothetical) children not to pledge allegience to it, for they should reserve their allegience to Christ. And I'd still want it removed from our pledge, the country's seal, and our currency.

For our government has no right to establish any religion... even vague, monotheistic civil religions, in this country. It is only when the government is truly secular can all religions flourish.

the 9th circuit says the "under God", "in God we trust", and " Annuit Coeptus" Phrases are the trappings of Civil Government and are religiously nuetral -that people repeat them-without assigning them a specific religious value

every Government has the right create their own civil religion-its how Nations manufacture and manipulate Patriotism examples the "gott mit uns" of Both Sweden during the 30 years war and Imperial Germany are prime examples

execpt for the very real danger of co-mingling terms and phrases with the majority religion of the land-(again the Battle Hymn of the Republic comes to mind) Civil religion has very little relation to true religion

Finally, Deius Americanus is the "God" of "God Bless America"; the "God" of "Manifest Destiny" and the "Providence" of " Annuit Coeptus"

"Finally, Deius Americanus is the "God" of "God Bless America"; the "God" of "Manifest Destiny" and the "Providence" of " Annuit Coeptus"" -

And there's no reaosn this can't be understood as meaning the Great Spirit, or the Triune Goddess or the Great Mother....it's akin to the 'higher power' of AA and such. The classical figure of 'Liberty' is another obvious choice.

I would imagine that atheists could treat this as a 'personification' of the ideals of America.

Back at Girls'(212) we knew it as our 'intangible spirit' : )) Vincet qui se vincet.....